President Obama’s effort to polarize the nation by engaging in class warfare is getting tiresome. His tirades against the “rich” and his call for people to pay “their fair share” are nothing more than re-election rhetoric designed to mobilize his base.

And that base is made up largely of those who live off government largess — government employees and those who depend on the many kinds of welfare being doled out.

Obama has himself never had to depend on the private sector for his employment. His history is one of government dependence. He doesn’t know what it’s like to make a payroll or deal with government regulations.

But that’s no excuse for the president of the United States to try and divide the nation by claiming the “rich” don’t pay enough taxes.

The reality is, somewhere between 40 percent and 50 percent of all Americans pay no federal income taxes. None. Zilch. Nada.

Those people are being subsidized by the rest of us. They don’t contribute to the nation’s military. They don’t have to pay for government debacles, such as the $535 million Solyndra failure.

Obama would have you believe otherwise. In his worldview, the “rich” should pay more taxes to fund those giveaway programs the rest of society enjoys.

But here’s the truth: The top 10 percent of federal taxpayers pay over 70 percent of all federal income taxes.

So who’s not paying their fair share? Taken in reverse, the above figure means this: 90 percent of all taxpayers only pay 30 percent of the taxes.

Unfortunately, Obama’s rhetoric sounds good to those who don’t know what’s really happening. There’s a large number of people today who don’t have a clue about how taxes work. They just want somebody else to pay their share.

One of the most cynical aspects of Obama’s rhetoric is the idea that secretaries pay less in taxes than CEOs. Liberal billionaire Warren Buffet started that idea by saying his secretary paid more taxes than he did.

Of course, that was not the case. Because most of Buffet’s income came from investments and not salary, he did pay a lower tax rate on that investment income. Earned income, such as his secretary has, is taxed at a higher percentage rate, but Buffet paid a lot more taxes than she did.

The reason we tax investment income at a lower rate in this country is to keep those dollars here for capital expansions. If you tax investment income at a too-high rate, those dollars will disappear into overseas investments rather than domestic investments.

In any event, the data just doesn’t support Obama’s claim. In 2009, the average federal tax rate for all Americans was 11 percent; the average for the top one percent was 24 percent. The average for the bottom 50 percent of federal taxpayers was just 1.8 percent.

So how is it unfair when the top taxpayers pay 24 percent and the bottom taxpayers pay virtually nothing?

Nobody would argue that we shouldn’t take care of those people truly in need in the country. We do have poverty and mental illness and people who are disabled who need our common support.

But a huge number of the underclass in America are “poor” because of the choices they’ve made; drug abuse, criminal activity, lack of education, out of wedlock births and other social problems that were man-made.

That nearly half of all Americans pay no federal income taxes is a huge distortion of the reality. Just about everyone should have to pay some taxes. What’s not fair is that only a small percentage of Americans pay such a huge share of the taxes.

The Obama rhetoric is nothing more than an attempt to divide the nation by pitting the “poor” against the “rich.” His political base is the underclass, most of whom don’t pay any taxes. It’s an easy target for him to portray those who work and produce in this country as not being fair.

But it isn’t the reality. Obama has taken on the propaganda rhetoric so common in third world countries — play one group of citizens against another; portray those at the top as evil and unfair; create a common “enemy” to rally a political base among the underclass.

America isn’t some third-world backwater. This nation is better than Obama’s misleading rhetoric.

Mike Buffington is co-publisher of Mainstreet Newspapes. He can be reached at mike@mainstreetnews.com.

You sound angry, Mike. Don't you get tired of being so angry all the time?
Except for the words "rich", "poor", "enemy", and the phrase "their fair share", you quote nothing President Obama has actually said.
A real journalist would.
The fluff you have written here is empty rhetoric.
You post no citations to back up your claims.
A real journalist would.
The fluff you have written here is empty rhetoric.
The GOP rhetoric has its own rhetoric - everyone running for president, including President Obama, has "rhetoric designed to mobilize his base". Haven't you been watching the debates?
A real journalist would.
The fluff you have written here is empty rhetoric.
I agree with your statement, "America isn’t some third-world backwater." I encourage you to visit a third-world country. Do some real journalistic investigation into the plight of its people. Reflect upon your experiences - then wow readers with your skill. You might even come to understand that your anger stems from deep hurting within and that this nation is better than your brand of misleading rhetoric.
But you know what - bless your heart for trying.

Been to many, many third world countries and second world communist countries. What we call "poor" here would be wealthy in most of those places. Obama is misleading to suggest that the wealthy here don't pay their fair share of taxes when the top 10% pay over 70% of the taxes and nearly 50% of people pay zero in federal income taxes. I guess one man's logic is another man's "fluff."

Romney, worth $250 million, pays 15% tax on income of $21 million. He has a Swiss bank account and hides millions in offshore Cayman Island "bank" tax havens. Oh, yeah, that's "fair." He enjoys firing people and overtly states he has no interest in helping the poor. He's better suited to strapping defenseless dogs to the top of his station wagon that he is in being President.

Please tell me since you say what Romney pays is not fair then what is fair? How much of his money and time do other people have the right to take. Plus look up what he gave to charity versus Obmama and the 15% is incorret as well. But main point I want to know is how much of his life or my life is someone else entitled to? How much of my life does someone else own?

Sending money to an extremely wealth cult is a rich man's version of charity.

And the 15% tax rate is his because the rich have paid for laws that strip away taxes for the methods they use to make their money while increasing taxes on the methods working Americans use to make their money.

Do you really believe the laws paid for by the rich that tax income earned by moving paper around in bank vaults at 15% and income earned by construction workers for actually building and producing something is set at 30% are either fair or good for America?

What is fair? Should be simple enough to answer.What percentage of one's person life is the government entitiled to own. Does the more successful you are, then mean that the government owns more of you and other people are enitiled to your time. Seriously what is fair?

Simple question but I will rephrase. How much of your life is someone else entitled to take? I never said any percent it should be. I want to know what percentage you feel that the government has the right to take.. Also for the record, the real percent you pay in taxes is much higher than you think.

Investment is encoraged among those who have gained wealth, that investment earns income, investment income has a Lower Tax rate than standard wages, to promote investment, which in turn creates other jobs and opportunities for others.
The person who has ammased his own weath is promted to invest in other ventures that would earn him/her income but create for others also. That is referred to as incentive.

So it isn't perfect but if the investor spends on a industry to make money, that investment allows the industry to expand, hire more, do more, produce more, then earn, the investor earns from the growth. That investment was Optional, but the different tax rate promoted them to invest...
Also known as Capitalism, which Obama is not a fan of, just sayin.

the incentive is when one amasses wealth and then uses Goverment to add to thier wealth by joining Goverment to limit competion, encouraging Goverment to take funds from others to help their interests, this happened with Railroads, banks, auto companies Doctors Lawyers Police even yes when Govt limits people or joins with others to require certain things this often requires Govt to take monies from the General folks and enriches some of the folks that wrote the laws, yes often times laws are written by the groups lobying the elected CROOKS!!!!

Capitalism isn't patriotic, American or even mentioned in the constitution. It is an economic concept and that is all. In it's pure form for it requires a level playing field, competition, and innovation to sustain growth through the exploitation of opportunity. It does not call for corporations to have more rights than citizens or moving from the exploitation of opportunity to the exploitation of the citizenry.

None of that is present in the current system. You job creators are the ones who owned all the factories and production facilities that they sold short to overseas labor for a quick profit and the nation has never recovered.

The financial crisis was created by the rich for the rich who are still laughing.

Capitalism is about competition. In its purist form, all companies are given a level playing field at the start. If you keep the government out (preventing the government from subsidizing anyone), the company with the best people making the best business decisions makes the most money.

When it comes to making a decision on where to put a factory, I have to consider where can I build at the lowest cost, hire the best people for the lowest rate, and have my materials shipped in at the lowest cost, and be able to ship my final product at the lowest cost. With the continuos increase in minimum wage I stay away from states that are not "Right To Work States." I've closed factories because of unions. Unions destroy companies, and hurt the workers. If it's cheaper for me to put a new factory overseas than it is to put one here in the States, I'll do it. Why? It keeps my overhead down, and it allows me to keep the sales price down for the consumer. I can make the most profit while being able to keep my product affordable to consumer.

The worst of the politicians, and, for that matter, everyone else,are those who engage in half-truths couched as points of order. To take statements at less than full value, is disingenuious at best, and flat-out lying at worst. Example - Those who want to criticize Romney for saying 1.)"he enjoys firing people". Flat-out lie. Finish his sentence to find out the truth., and 2.)"overtly states he has no interest in helping the poor." Find the full text of his statement as he continues. And while Romney later stated that he regretted putting that statement in the way he did, his meaning was clear. He was speaking of the safety net of the poor, and that most of his concern was for the great middle class America.

Oh yes, let's give the quarter-billionaire vulture capitalist the benefit of the context doubt. Even if you do that, he is still a tone-deaf. He has no feel for or interest in the little man. Kinda like old man Bush was amazed and puzzled by a common supermarket scanner. The fact is he did NOT say he relished making choices in who he employed; he said "I enjoy firing people." Tone deaf country club GOP to the core. he said he didn't inherit his money. the fact is his daddy was a millionaire car executive and governor of Michigan. "Brainwashed"Daddy paid for Willard to attend Harvard. Talk about having doors opened for sonny boy.

And, finally he admits he "misspoke" when he said the very poor did not concern him. Tone deaf to the end.

A mormon flipflopper who obsequiously accepts an endorsement from a loathsome casino mogul.

A flipflopper on abortion who presumes to dictate what a woman does with her body. Roe v. Wade be damned.

Any man who has a Swiss bank account and millions in Cayman Island offshore tax havens needs to stay home in his New Hampshire mansion. And that's where Obama is gonna send him in November.

This is a well-written article! I'm sharing it on my facebook. Hopefully more people will understand what's going on with our taxes and be able to see the consequences of Obama's policies, despite the blissful sentiments of government handouts that so many become addicted to.

Truth be told it's the liberals and Democrats (Obama supporters) who are snowed. Manufacturing has decreased under the Obama Administration by 12%, going from 23% to 11%. The deficit has increased by $4 Billion in 3 years. Obama's biggest supporters during last election where Wall Street Banks. And just wait until the Loss-Share Program runs out in the next couple of years. That program was written by two of Obama's biggest supporters, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Yeah, Obama is looking after the little man alright; just like I look after the mushrooms in my back yard.

I think the article is mostly true except fopr in the first paragraph when the author throws government employees in with the deadbeats and calls the salary of a govt. workers an"entitlement"
Not true. govt.employees are paid for doing a job that most people dont want... in the good times, but when things go south these ignoramuses get jealous .
Heres the simple deal with govt. employees, they agree to make less money in exchange for good benefits and a pension.I guess you could pay themmore up front and do away with a pension and benefits, but good luck finding anyone with a work ethic and the ability to spell and count.
The big malfocus of the current economy is that govt, workers still dont make didly, but compared to everyone else it looks like they do.Mike , maybe if you could build a time machine and go back to when you were making decesions about your career,you could have become a govt. worker instead of a newsman.You would have only made about a fourth of what you have over your career, but it would have been a steady income.

All over the news. On average government employees make 16% more than private sector. This does not include the benefits. No matter how much you spout the governemnt workers make less, it is simply not true. Much like your name, website or campaign, the underpaid government work is a figment of your imagination.

Not true not true. Im going to spill the beans a little bit about myself.I am in fact a government employee I have been working for the govt. for close to 30 years and I can tell you flat out that your suppositions are false.Why do you think we all drive cars that are on average 10 years old, why do you think we live in modest homes? while our bretheren in the private sector as well as those sponging off of all of us are always in a new car, and live in Mcmansions.Im not knocking my place, Im where I am because of a choice I made long ago.And I have had a small but steady paycheck for all these years, and Im ok. But dont be flouting phony studies about govt. workers wages, and our benfits have been in steadu decline for most of those 30 years.16% indeed, make it 20% and you will have the average of how much lower we make than the private sector, but Im not complaining about that , never have. I only complain when I hear bozos talking of trying to take my pension that I have earned after working for somany years a a lower rate.a deal is a deal and if you are not honorable enough to follow through on your end of the bargain then a court will see to it that you do.

Jack is CORRECT; the figures are very misleading and purposely so. Government Employees suffered for decades while the private employed pay gap grew and grew. The economy was good, cost of living was a huge gap bigger for private over government employees, the Average Govt Employee was always underpaid UNTIL suddenly our leaders ( fill in whomever you pick ) and other factors tanked the economy, Now people are hurting, those getting paid more for years aren’t and now some of those are out of work now SO it's "attack and blame the low paid govt workers" who took more secure, but less desired positions, now when the tide changed they get hammered. The payback for those sacrifices made of the lower wages, working in bureaucracy, jobs less desired but it meant somewhat more security while providing service to your fellow citizens, they used to get some decent benefits like cheaper health insurance, yea, that was eroded away years ago, but glad they have a job and most are proud to serve you. You want them around when you need them.

Now they have to “pay for” the price for the high paid leaders & decision maker’s bad choices.

At the Federal level, They Spent, Spent, phony stimulus, funded at the pet projects, Obamacare, Spend, Spend, Spend… Now Make the Employee pay for all the BS spending that our Leaders blew (the employees never saw any of this money). Nancy Pelosi and her Boeing 757 Private Jet, millions blown, ---now the $40K a year government worker can’t get a raise for five years or more, while trying support his/her family too, --- because of Poor Leadership?

The average Govt worker is paid WAY less than you can imagine, the newspapers and propaganda is BS, those high paid executive types at any level that they point to are a minuscule percentage. Most employees cannot bargin about salaries, only working conditions.

I am against bloated governments, but not government in general, there are plenty of government workers who guard, protect, serve you everyday.

Quit taking out your frustrations with the **POOR LEADERS YOU CHOOSE** on the working men and women of your Federal, State and Local Governments.

Jack, saying you are a government employee is no shock to ANYONE. That is the only thing I have ever beleived. Phony studies. Not hardly. Try every study. Pensions are bankrupting communities. There is no gaurantee in the private sector. I have taken a 30% cut and not had a raise in 3 years. But that's ok. You can reach into my pocket and take some more. I will give you this. There was a time that gov't employees did make less. Those days are gone since collective bargaining. And because of collective bargaining the people who pay, the taxpayers, did not have a seat at the table. Go work on your website.

Phony studies conducted by whatever media outlet you wish to site can make a convincing argument either way. You should only believe what you see and know, not what a group or media outlet wishes you to know.Pensions bankrupting communities? I call B.S. right there, I pay into my pension and so does my employer. The market has been up and down and a lot of people are scared right now thats why dumb people think that the pensions are bankriping communities.You are right about there being no guarentee in the private sector, thats why I chose to make less 30years ago and instead have a steady although small check.I too have taken a 30% pay cut and have not seen a raise since late in 2007, and probably wont for another 4 years.Im not reaching into your pocket either bozo. I work hard for what I get paid and neither you nor any employer i've ever had has given me anything. Like I said I work and its a fair trade.When I started in my govt. job I made 17000 a year for working 120 hours a week not 40.There is NO collective bargaining in Georgia for govt. emplotyees, the taxpayers have all the seats at the table and the employees dont have any , so why dont you gp work on your website and quit spreading lies and propaganda.

dont respond in a snide way and then fein offense when i call you a name.you know very well that your lies and attacks against the very people who provide you with the services that allow us to have a civilisation will provoke anger in said workers. But interestinly you throw out a number from the congressional budget office. does that imply that the govt. em[ployees whom you think make 16% more than the private sector are employees of the federal govt. or just govt. employees in general because I can assure you that you are dead wrong if you are trying to apply a made up figure like 16% to all govt. employees .

Please tell me where I once said that I was against all government and government employees. Or even where I said they made too much money. Jack wrote a blanket statement." Heres the simple deal with govt. employees, they agree to make less money in exchange for good benefits and a pension.I guess you could pay themmore up front and do away with a pension and benefits, but good luck finding anyone with a work ethic and the ability to spell and count. " I was merely pointing out that today, at this time in history it is not true. Nowhere have I once said anything about the pay levels. I only mentioned that I in the private sector have taken a huge hit. Why should I pay for raises that are not happening in the average private sector. We do not have to imagine the salary for public workers. It is available. Some are underpaid and many are overpaid. I was merely pointing out that the day of the starving civil servant is a thing of the past. You can deny it all you want but as a group it is the truth.

First all need to remember the difference between a local, state and federal government employee. I know all arguments above are correct. Some local and state employees have sufferred while federal employees have benefited. If we talk tocal look no further than the WPD and their lack of raise over the last 4 years (maybe longer). Then look at what Thompson and Outz did with Sabrina's income and benefits. Just a couple of examples to support both arguments at the local level. Collective bargaining. Out of your minds for government employees to have CB rights. Federal Employees (wage grade workers) have CB rights including the state of
GA. Even FDR knew this was wrong.

More evidence for the anti-goverment emloyee crowd is:
In 2004 the average wage and benefit income for a federal imployee was $100,178. The average for a private sector employee was $51,876. This disparity continues today on a greater scale; while most businesses are laying-off employees the federal gov't grows. Currently federal gov't hiring is frozen for the foreseeable future and many agencies are preparing for lay-offs and downsizing.

I have tried to stay out of this fray but I no longer can. Let’s start with Mr. Buffet. He owns several businesses and makes lots of money. No one denies that. When he draws money from one of his companies he is taxed at a 35% corporate tax on said money because he is the Corporate Owner. That is the first bite of the apple. Now that he has money to spend he choices to invest in other ventures. Then if he makes a profit he takes his profits/capital gains out from said investments. This is taxed at 15% on the profits from the investments. That will be the second bite of the same apple.

A typical worker only pays from 15% to 22% on the average according to his/her tax status. Now just for the sake of the argument if Buffet took out the same amount of money that his secretary makes yearly (reportedly somewhere from 200k to 400k) he is taxed at 35% and again at 15% on his investments gains. You can see there is far more taxes paid on his 200k than his secretary ever pays on her 200k.

How can Obama stand on TV and tell the general public that Buffet pays fewer taxes than his secretary? I know most people will not understand this but 35% corporate plus 15% capital gains is surely paying the government more taxes on his 200k initial money withdrawal from his company than the 22% taxes on the same 200k the secretary pays.

I know the unknowledgeable will start blowing chunks now but facts are facts. Both Republicans and Democrats spew false hoods all the time but this time the facts do not back up his remarks.

" I know most people will not understand this but 35% corporate plus 15% capital gains is surely paying the government more taxes on his 200k initial money withdrawal from his company than the 22% taxes on the same 200k the secretary pays."

Your premise is wrong here.

Obama's argument is that he only pays 15% on his income. Obama and Buffet both know that their argument is wrong. Buffet pays 35% on his taxable income, and roughly 15% on his capital gains. They argument the the Dumb Masses, is that he is only paying 15% on his taxable income. If you look into the business ventures and what Buffett makes vs his secretary, yes she is paying more on her income taxes than Buffet is. On her taxable wages she does get paid more than he does. However, his money comes in the form of stock dividends rather than a paycheck. The dividends fall under Capital Gains taxes and not Income Taxes. The majority of your CEO's have this very same contract. Look back at the Old Chrysler deal when Lee Iacocca when he was quoted as saying, "I am cutting my salary to $1 a year." What he didn't tell everyone and was only reported to the SEC and IRS was that the rest of his "salary" was in the form of stocks.

Wait a minute there ... the demorats can't comprehend this explanation. It does not bring more money in so Obama can give them more food stamps and welfare. They can't handle their government checks getting cut. They will never understand the difference between taxable income and capital gains. The only thing they understand is the check on the first of the month.

The bad thing is that most of the ignorant people (welfare and food stamps people) which are his base don't know the difference. Don't care ... just want Obama to save them and keep their checks coming.

Typical demorat ... tax those rich people … so you can send me my check!!

The economic views of the GOP voter can be boiled down to hope that, one day, they will be like the multi-millionaires that they vote into office. That, and a complete disregard for the principle of investment for the future. Also, an entire paucity of compassion for their fellow man.

I wil say this the powers that be have made the best flea flicker ever. they said blame the poor and the working class for the countries financial woes, and almost all have drank the koolaid and actually believed it. If you think you have aything in common except being a human with anyone in washington, you are a fool. Their only job is to keep you under their thumb, give you a 10 dollar raise in your paycheck with a TAX CUT and we go our merry way thinking they care about me. Either dem or rep it does not matter they do not have your best interest in mind, never have. just say whatever it takes to be elected agian and ride the gravy train. its the oldest management trick in the book, right out of the 20's. Keep them fighting with themselves and that way they dont see what we have done..Damn people open your eyes. If this was 1776 we would be at war with washington...

I must say that this thread has produced some of the best back and forth banter from both sides we have ever seen in this blog. Maybe more of us are starting to learn how to do more than just be rude.

As to the topic it is mostly mote. The financial system in America is broken and no longer remotely resembles Capitalism. With new technology we will be able to crowd source bill writing to eliminate lobby influences and fully mobile Internet devices will allow us to vote on bills individually without a representative government for corporations to corrupt.
This is the first time in the history of the world we are able to see the Horror of fully mature capitalism and we have found that as it ages, human greed and selfishness make it as equally unjust as socialism or communism.
Just because it is the last "ism" standing does not make it the best possible solution. Its fifteen minutes are just about over.

You know, it is kind of scary how we have gotten here. I read where republicans are all millionaires...truth is, there are more millionaire democrats than republicans and that is a fact.

As to voting with an ipod or ipad and no need for washington..that't even scarier. This country is a Republic..not a Democracy. If we give you folks that are on the government teat the a vote by majority, that is all you need to finish destroying the rest of this country. Yeah, let't vote ourselves some of the other guys money and property.

By the way, when did some of you get back from the "Occupy" protests. I bet you really had a blast mingling with your gimme buddies. Hope you brought your tent home...your gonna need it if some of you get your way.

You had a good post. I have seen in the Wall Street Journal twice since Obama took office that they are in fact more Democrats worth one million dollars or more than Republicans. There are in fact more Republicans on welfare because of where in the US most Republicans live. Also they reported there are more Democrats are Food Stamps, Wick and smaller give me programs.

So, I think both parties don’t have too much to brag about. The problem is not whether you are a Democrat, Republican or Tea Party … it lies in the fact that the US CAN NOT continue on the present course. Each year there will be more not paying taxes at all, more on Welfare, more on food stamps. You only have to look over seas to see that socialism does not work. They were told that they only had to work to 50 to retire. Now they are told you must work to 60. This is why they are in the street rioting. We have already seen our retire pushed up past 65. They have been told that the government subsidies will run out. That is what is going to happen here. When more and more get on the welfare and food stamps rolls … then who is going to pay for this? At some point people are going to give up and quit working and get on the welfare rolls. Then the taxes dry up and everybody stops getting a check.

Please people change the station away from the cool-aid Obama channels and Fox to get more of the picture. When we all wise up and stop letting them keep us under their thumbs by giving out welfare and food stamps we can claim back our country.

Mike,
Your editorial is right on the money, and the proof is all of the Democratic Socialists out there that have somehow bought into Obama's Socialist agenda.
The fact of the matter is, that our Country was not founded on Socialist principles, never has been, and never will be.

Your observation on class warefare is also correct, and history is riddled with examples of class warfare starting major socio-economic uprisings(Russia,China,etc.) that have led to Socialism and the even worse Communisim around the world. if you look at the negative financial effects of Socialism in Greece, Italy, Spain, Germany and other countries in The European Union, it is clear that Socialism is the last thing America needs.
Conservatives in this country are raising their voices to make it clear that Socialism will not stand in America, and that Obama has simply gone too far in trying to destroy this nation........
DuWayne Anderson
Republican Voter
Winder, GA

Well richie,
I dont know why you addressed that to me, I never said obama was for the little man, he is in fact a communist in disguise and him and his ilk are attempting to destroy America. I never have voted for a dmeocrat but I do have a hard time voting for a republican. If there was a political party that espoused the physcal conservative of the libertarians alaong with the social conservatism the religous right. Then that would be my party of choice, unfortuantly we dont have that so I will just hold my nose and vote for the republicans like I always do.

4 Trillion in 3 years. 4 Trillion. It's a continuous process for him and his administration. Question: How does someone who comes from a marginal background (family has no money), never work in the private sector and then become a millionaire? Insider trading, Chicago politics, etc. It's just part of the job. You are right; he won't end his term in that manner because he started his term that way.

Yearwood and Obama together have been a bad combination for barrow county, we dont need 4 more years of either one and certanily not both.We dont need obama giving away trillions and we dont need yearwood giving away millions that we dont have.Stand up for America this election cycle and vote against obama , and while your at it do yourself a big favor and vote against yearwood in the local elections.

Under the Obama Administration there was a $600 Billion trade deficit for CY 11. That's up 12% from the year before. Just about the time his policies start taking effect; 2 1/2 years after his election. On another note, all the buzz surrounding the Chrysler commercial during the Super Bowl makes eveyone feel warm inside, more so for the union people which really caused it's demise prior to the bail-outs. Guess what; Chrysler isn't a US automaker. It's owned by FIAT with a 31% holding which will increase to 51% under terms of the bail-out. Our tax money was used to bail-out a foreign automaker.

I am wondering what % of their (the 10% who pay 70% of taxes)"reported" income is compared to the gross taxes received. If it is less than 70%, I would say it is fair,if more than 70%, I would say it is unfair.
Please note above, "reported income". It's very hard to hide income with a W-2, which most middle income people receive from their employer.

Americans relying on the federal government received an average $32,748 worth of benefits in 2010. That’s more than the average American’s personal disposable income of $32,446. Now, more than 67.3 million Americans depend on the federal government for everything from food stamps and college tuition to retirement services and health care. The Index saw overall dependency on the government jump 8.1% in 2010. This cost federal taxpayers roughly $2.5 trillion. At the same time, nearly half the nation (49.5%) does not pay any federal income taxes. This means a shrinking number of taxpayers are funding a growing number of people who rely on the government for their daily existence—a recipe for the government’s fiscal collapse.

Add Comment

Name

Email

Homepage

In reply to

Comment

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To leave a comment you must approve it via e-mail, which will be sent to your address after submission.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: